Innovation and Rules of Professional Responsibility

ABA President B. Lamm has created a new Commission on Ethics called Ethics 20/20 to review  ethics rules and regulation of the legal profession in the United States in the context of a global legal services marketplace. Hearings will be held at ABA Meetings to get input from various interests on how to reform or modify the ABA Code to enable US law firms to remain competitive in an age where Internet  technology is pervasive.

I have been invited by the Commission to testify and submit a statement at the ABA Mid-Year Meeting in Orlando, where the Commission is holding one of its first public hearings.

My statement will discuss the following topics:

  • how the rules of professional responsibility function as a deterrent to innovation;
  • issues relating to the unauthorized practice of law and the definition of "the practice of law;"
  • legal referral concepts in the age of the Internet;
  • state rules of professional responsibility that require a "physical" business office in order to practice law in that state;
  • the potential for cloud computing;
  • enabling the delivery of limited legal services online;
  • law firm ownership structure as it relates to innovation in the delivery of legal services;
  • and the eLawyering Task Force Recommended Guidelines for the Delivery of OnLine Legal Services.

I am looking for suggestions and ideas about other issues that relate to the delivery of online legal services and the rules of professional responsibility. Any ideas are welcome. Just comment on this blog.

Minimum Requirements for Virtual Law Firms

The eLawyering Task Force,  which is part of the Law Practice Management Section of the American Bar Association has been developing a recommended set of minimum requirements for law firms delivering legal services online.  The draft that has been published is a working draft and we are soliciting comments as we move towards a final document. The draft document can be downloaded here.

The ABA does not have a comment facility on their web site, but comments can be contributed on this blog, well as a discussion group  that has been set up on LinkedIn called Virtual Lawyering.

Any comments that are submitted will be circulated among members of the Task Force.

Disclosure: I am Co-Chair of the eLawyering Task Force

Best Practices for Virtual Law Firms

The eLawyering Task Force of the Law Practice Management Section of the ABA, had its monthly telephone call on Friday. One of the action items is a renewed interest and commitment to produce a set of best practice guidelines for law firms that want to deliver legal services online. These guidelines would complement the Best Practice Guidelines for Legal Information Web Site Providers that were produced by the eLawyering Task Force and approved by the ABA House of Delegates in 2003. The Legal Information Best Practices Guidelines apply to both law firms and non-law firms and don't deal specifically with issues that lawyers face when they want to deliver legal services online. In some cases it has been reported that malpractice insurance carriers have declined coverage when a law firm attempts to provide legal services directly through their web site. With more law firms embracing the concept of virtual legal practice, it becomes even more important to provide a framework for best practices.  The guidelines would cover such topics as ethical issues in delivering online legal services, security issues, and the attorney/client relationship.

In addition, a new group of software vendors that license "software as a service" {SaaS) have emerged to provide online software applications that support virtual law practice. Some of these vendors include: Virtual Law Office Technology, RocketMatter, Clio, and our own DirectLaw, Inc.,  As part of the guidelines development process, we plan to seek input from this emerging group of software as service vendors.

The goal is to have a draft ready for the discussion by the eLawyering Task Force at the ABA mid-year meeting and then a revised draft for further discussion as the quarterly meeting of the Law Practice Management Section in New Orleans in May, 13- 16, 2009.

Feedback and ideas about what issues should be covered are welcome from all.

 

Best Practice Guidelines for Legal Information Web Site Providers

There are hundreds of non-law firm legal information and legal form web sites, some good, but many are inaccurate containing out of date legal information and legal forms that are not valid in many jurisdictions. [ Disclosure our company operates automated legal form web sites such as SmartLegalForms. ].  

To help consumers evaluate the quality of legal information on the Web, the American Bar Association approved a set of best practice guidelines for legal information web site providers in 2003. These best practice guidelines provide a set of standards which are very basic,  such as the recommendation that legal information web sites publish contact information, provide notice of the jurisdiction where the legal content is valid, and publish a date which indicates the currency of the content and when the content was last up-dated. The guidelines are designed to be applied to both law firm web sites and non-law firm web sites as they focus on the quality and accuracy of the legal information provided within the web site, and not the ethical issues that apply only to law firms.

Unfortunately, the ABA never fully promoted these guidelines, because of other association priorities, and as a result most legal information web sites are unaware of them. As "best practices" they don't have much force other than than to provide a framework for "best practice" and are advisory only.  Many law firm and legal information web sites incorporate these best practices in their design even though they are unaware of the "best practice" guidelines themselves.

On the other hand, we notice new legal information and legal form web sites monthly that pop-up that not only don't conform to these guidelines but border on out right deception. Here is an example: Illinois DivorceOnline.com - subtitled "Official Illinois Divorce Forms"

This web site almost looks like a law firm web site with the picture of a smiling older gentleman with a beard as if to send a signal that this is a web site that can be trusted. The site refers to "divorce specialists, " whatever that is. In many states attorneys cannot even advertise that they are "specialists" and here we have a web site that represents that "divorce specialists" will review your forms. 

Closer inspection, however, reveals, that there is no contact information, no support page, no indication of the date when the legal forms were revised, and fine print disclaims any responsibility for their accuracy, which is typical of these sites, but further makes the promise that the company will guarantee that the forms will be accepted by the court and if they are not, then the consumer will get a full refund, less a $50.00 administrative fee. There is no explanation as to why a $50.00 fee should be deducted when the forms are rejected, as distinguished from a full refund. In fact, the only way for a consumer to figure out the refund policy is to read all of the fine print in the Terms and Conditions statement. The price is of the service doesn't appear on the home page. Instead, the user must first register their case and provide information, before learning what the charges will be.

This web site should be compared to: IllinoisDivorce.com , the Chicago web site of the law firm of Cowell Taradash, P.C., This web site also offers a low cost divorce for pro se parties, but there is a clear explanation of the services offered and the identity of the publisher of the site.

The first site is a non-lawyer paralegal document preparation web site which is opaque as to identity, scope of services, pricing, and follow-on support. The second site, is a law firm web site, that is transparent with respect to all of these factors. The consumers would benefit from more law firm web sites like this, and less deceptive non-lawyer legal form web sites.